traditionalist view of tweaking social roles

social conditioning is in part conventional -but not solely conventional.

social roles express social memes passed on by social selection. and these are not stereotypes. at least not taking "stereotype" in a negative sense. there are actually positive stereotypes.

remember, society supervenes on individuals and societies of societies supervene on societies. so i ask, what's important and not important in social roles? we don't fully know.

in economics, history and system theory, this is known as law of unintended consequences.

here are some examples.

* spain's discovery of the new world and gold, actually made spanish mercantilism stronger (more money more mismanagement) which makes for more war (england, france, etc) which ends up depleting the very sources of wealth. in less than three centuries, spain became poorer and weaker.
* the chimney solves the exhaust industrial problems of 19th century, only to contribute to acid rain in the twenty-first century.
* antibiotics are one of the great advances in medicine, but their over prescription has resulted in the development of antibiotic-resistant diseases.
* the bolshevik revolution of 1917 in Russia announces a new era of human equality and progress. instead brings the horrors of the gulag labor camps and the purges of the 1930s under Stalin.
* as farming becomes automatized to serve the needs of a more populated planet, which is a direct cause of deforestation. 
* the discovery of nuclear fission, so important for nuclear power, simultaneously becomes the main ingredient for the nuclear arms race during the cold war.
* at a supervinient level, modernity is responsible for the ills of postmodernity.
* animal farming seeks the laudable goal of maximizing production output and keeping affordable prices, while on the other hand it increases carbon footprint, methane and poor living conditions for these animals.

*we're beginning to understand the negative side of renewable energy (it pollutes the environment and costs more than hydrocarbons.

the list goes on and on.....

as we pretend to cherry-pick social roles, we ignore that they are cogs-in-a-wheel.how so? a "role" is not just one thing. it's a composite, each with different influence:

1-micro/social influences: say, taking children to learn judo, which gives them structure perseverance and resilience.
2- genetic influences: for instance, how athletic ability predisposes athletic roles and mathematical abilities predispose some for scientific roles.
3- cultural influences: for example, soccer players are regarded higher in european countries, not so much here, where soccer is less popular. &
4- situational influences: roles which depend on the situation a person is put in outside their own influence, i.e., say, myself as consumer (but which impacts my family and my community)

societies are supervinient structures. they are necessarily hierarchical. no matter what you do to change a hierarchy, in the end another hierarchy replaces the old one.

don't fight it. you can't eliminate social roles. they exist for a reason.

(to boot, don't ignore that there's proof of darwinian sex roles in the animal kingdom).